ORDERTANVIR AHMAD KHAN J, - The petitioner who is a Patwari, is aggrieved of an enquiry initiated on the application of respondent No.8 Inayat respecting a fraudulent entry of mutation before the Director Anti-corruption, Lahore, who has onward entrusted the same to respondent No.7, Rana Nadeem akhtar, Assistant Director, Anti-corruption, Punjab, Lahore. He has approached this Court under constitutional jurisdiction with a stance that since another enquiry is pending respecting the same matter before respondent No.1 Consolidation Officer, Okara, the same could not be probed into by the Anticorruption Department. The petitioner has argued that the action of respondent No.7 is not only violative of Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. But is also against section 403 Cr.P.C.
2. I have considered the contentions. I am afraid, the writ petition is premature. The petitioner has approached this Court without even associating himself in the enquiry pending before Anti- corruption Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any law in support of his assertion. The reliance of the petitioner either on Article 13 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan or section 403 Cr.P.C. Is not apt. The former is not at all attracted as it has accorded protection against double punishment. It will only come into play if any person has already been prosecuted or punished for an offence. Such person cannot be tried or punished for the same offence in the presence of the earlier order. Similarly, section 403 Cr.P.C would only bei attracted if a person has been once tried by a Court of competent jurisdiction for j an offence and has either been convicted or acquitted. So long as his convictiionl or acquittal is in force, that person is not liable to be tried again. Here in this easel only two enquiries are pending against the petitioner. One appears to be a j departmental enquiry with consolidation officer and the other with Anti-j corruption Department respecting the criminal liability. Both these enquiries can' go side by side. It has been held in Shafqat Mahmood Lodhi Vs. The Accountant- General West Pakistan.
Lahore (PLD 1968 Lahore 786) that" the question can j also be viewed in another perspective. The whole object of initiating disciplinary] proceedings against a civil servant is to maintain purity of public servant which,*] indeed, is in the highest public interest. The object is certainly not to punish an J erring civil servant in the criminal sens that would require his trial in a criminal j Court. It is because of this that when the facts alleged against a delinquent also constitute a criminal offence, he is separate^ imd by the criminal Court and the disciplinary action to adjudge his fitness for further retention in public service can proceed simultaneously or follow the result of the criminal case."
3. Similar view was taken in Nazir Ahmad Vs. The Govt, of West Pakistan through the Secretary of Services and General Administration I Department. Lahore and 3 others (PLD 1973 Lah. 259) that there was no bar on the part of the authorities concerned to initiate both, namely, judicial as well as J departmental proceedings against a delinquent officer. Reliance is also placed upon The Deputy Inspector-General of Police. Lahore and others Vs. Anis-ur-1 Rehman Khan (PLD 1985 S.C.
134), Muhammad Tufail Vs. Assistant j Commissioner /collector (1989 S.C.M.R 316) and Amir Abdullah Vs. j superintendent of Police and others (1989 S.C.M.R 333).
Resultantly, I do not find any force in this writ petition, which is dismissed in] limine.